This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A list of issues with this article.
Neutral Point Of View
This article has numerous issues with neutrality. I will attempt to document most of them here.
Representation of Gab
A significant portion of this article attempts to represent Gab as a "far-right" website, and attempts to minimize the "free speech" aspect of Gab, despite reliable sources reflecting Gab's lack of user guidelines. It gives weight against gab being a "free speech" website, and in support of gab being a far-right website. I will attempt to put all quotes directly from the article below.
- Gab has been described as "extremist friendly" or a "safe haven" for neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right.
- This self-promotion of "free speech" has been criticised in research articles as "merely a shield behind which its alt-right users hide", and "an echo chamber for right-leaning content dissemination".
- Gab attracted migration of users banned from other social networks, including members of the far right.
- The site's most followed users include high-profile far-right individuals such as Richard B. Spencer, Mike Cernovich, and Alex Jones.
- The site is a favorite of "alt-right" users who have been banned or suspended from other services, including former Breitbart writer Milo Yiannopoulos, formerly anonymous Twitter user "Ricky Vaughn", and white supremacists
- According to that study, the site hosted a high volume of racism and hate speech,[42] and primarily "attracts alt-right users, conspiracy theorists, and other trolls".
- The authors of the study concluded that while anyone can join Gab, the site is aligned with the alt-right and its use of free speech rhetoric "merely functions as a shield for its alt-right users to hide behind".
- Another study in late 2018 confirmed that Gab is crowded by extremist users.
- This has led to the conclusion that Gab "has become an echo chamber for right-leaning content dissemination".
- In addition to allowing Holocaust denial and other forms of anti-Semitism, Gab has been used as a recruitment tool by violent neo-Nazi groups
- Gab has been described as "Twitter for racists" by Salon, a "hate-filled echo chamber of racism and conspiracy theories" by The Guardian, and "safe haven for banned Twitter trolls, Gamergaters, Pizzagaters and high-profile white nationalists" by Mic. An editorial in Wired criticized Gab for not explicitly prohibiting hate speech.
- Torba has denied that Gab is "designed specifically for conservatives" and has stated that "we welcome everyone and always will". However, in filings made with the SEC in 2016, Gab admitted that its target market is "conservative, libertarian, nationalists and populist internet users around the world", and listed far-right conspiracy theorist websites Breitbart News and InfoWars as its main competitors.
- The logo has been compared to Pepe the Frog, a cartoon character used as a meme by the alt-right.
These are all quotes in the current article at time of writing. They all reflect the same point of view that Gab is not a platform for free speech, or that Gab is filled with far-right users, despite reliable sources in support of and against both of these points of view. However, The point of view that Gab is for "free speech" is not accurately represented alongside the point of view that Gab is simply a "far-right" website. It doesn't give due weight to both sides of the issue. There are a large amount sources that reflect that Gab is a free speech website or that Gab has a lack of user guidelines. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]
The article also omits information on the de-platforming of Gab, which is also covered by a large amount of sources. The only reference to this de-platforming in the article is "PayPal, GoDaddy and Medium terminated their relationship with Gab" which is vague and doesn't specifically state that gab was de-platformed or removed.
Impartial Tone
In this article, there are statements that give a biased tone / attempts to confirm disputes against Gab. Some of these quotes with this issue will be included below.
- Another study in late 2018 confirmed that Gab is crowded by extremist users
- This has led to the conclusion that Gab "has become an echo chamber for right-leaning content dissemination"
- In addition to allowing Holocaust denial and other forms of anti-Semitism, Gab has been used as a recruitment tool by violent neo-Nazi groups
These quotes have language that endorses the point of view that Gab is filled with far-right users, the first quote saying it's "Confirmed", the second saying "It led to the conclusion", and third, "allowing"
Words to watch
Some words used in this article express doubt or promote a certain point of view. Some examples are below.
- this self-promotion of "free speech" has been criticised in research articles as "merely a shield behind which its alt-right users hide"
"this self-promotion" along with quoting "free speech" serves to express doubt/ go against the point of view that Gab is a platform for free speech. This can be written in an impartial tone by changing it to something like Although gab presents it's self as a "free speech platform", some research articles have criticized this self-promotion as "merely a shield behind which its alt-right users hide"
- Another study in late 2018 confirmed that Gab is crowded by extremist users.
the words "confirmed" and "crowded" are used to promote the point of view that Gab is filled with far-right users. A better quote would be something like A study by (Group or list of main contributors who conducted the study) found that Gab is filled with extremist users.
Words to watch in quotes from articles
Several quotes in this article quote directly from other articles. These quotes include very biased language. Some examples of bias are quoted below.
- "merely a shield behind which its alt-right users hide" and "an echo chamber for right-leaning content dissemination".
- According to The Verge, the posts "express intense anti-Semitism and meet any reasonable definition of hate speech."
- attracts alt-right users, conspiracy theorists, and other trolls"
Quotes like these should be avoided or paraphrased because it gives a biased tone to the article against Gab. Many of these quotes are also merely opinions by the sources, rather than actual research, and shouldn't be included anyways.
No Original Research
This section is brief, and only is about WP:STICKTOSOURCE
Sticking to what the source says
Multiple claims on this article fail to accurately summarize what the article it's citing is claiming, and often cherry-pick language used by the article in either the title or in the article it's self. Some examples of this behavior are listed below.
the cited sources for this claim don't state or imply that Gab is "known for it's far-right user base", nor provide any sources showing that it has a far-right user base.
- The site gained extensive public scrutiny following the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting on October 27, 2018, as the perpetrator maintained a verified account on Gab[13]
The claim that the site gained extensive "Public scrutiny" isn't supported by the article cited.
- The site is a favorite of "alt-right" users who have been banned or suspended from other services.[14][15]
The claim that the site is a "favorite" of alt-right users isn't supported by the sources given. However, it does show that far-right users moved to Gab after being banned from other services. A better way to write this would be something like The site has increasingly been used by alt-right users who have been banned or suspended from other services
- The authors of the study concluded that while anyone can join Gab, the site is aligned with the alt-right and its use of free speech rhetoric "merely functions as a shield for its alt-right users to hide behind".[16][17]
To start off, the strange thing about this is that it cites an article, and then it cites a study, but the article it's self already cites that same study. There is no reason to cite the same thing twice. Anyhow, neither the article nor the study state that Gab is "aligned" with the alt-right. The vice article does include a quote by Jeremy Blackburn, which states "But if you look at the top posts and what the site admins are talking about, Gab is very clearly aligned with the alt-right ideology.", however this is an opinion, and in the Wikipedia article, it says the study's authors said this, but only a single quote by a single person (not plural) reflects this. The quote is not in the study either, despite the quote from the Wikipedia article associating the author's opinion with the "conclusion" of the study, when it isn't. Ridiceo (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://www.yahoo.com/news/gab-social-network-alt-right-fights-stay-online-180155668.html
- ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/arts/the-far-right-has-a-new-digital-safe-space.html
- ^ https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/alexkantrowitz/new-social-network-gab-growing-fast-free-speech
- ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/10/31/silicon-valley-elite-social-media-hate-radicalization-that-led-gab/
- ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/28/us/gab-robert-bowers-pittsburgh-synagogue-shootings.html
- ^ https://www.npr.org/2018/10/28/661532688/a-look-at-gab-the-free-speech-social-site-where-synagogue-shooting-suspect-poste
- ^ https://www.wired.com/story/gab-offline-free-speech-alt-right/
- ^ https://gizmodo.com/even-the-freest-free-speech-site-still-bans-people-1791178262
- ^ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/10/what-gab/574186/
- ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/arts/the-far-right-has-a-new-digital-safe-space.html
- ^ https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/6/16259150/gab-ai-registrar-andrew-anglin-daily-stormer-crackdown
- ^ https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/05/21/529005840/feeling-sidelined-by-mainstream-social-media-far-right-users-jump-to-gab
- ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/28/us/gab-robert-bowers-pittsburgh-synagogue-shootings.html
- ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/11/29/banned-from-twitter-this-site-promises-you-can-say-whatever-you-want/?utm_term=.dbddae0b9e75
- ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/11/16/a-great-purge-twitter-suspends-richard-spencer-other-prominent-alt-right-accounts/?utm_term=.32d917040d92
- ^ https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/ywxb95/gab-is-the-alt-right-social-network-racists-are-moving-to
- ^ https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.05287
For discussion, please use the section below
Discuss
You will not be allowed to white-wash this article. Provide sources that show your points or stop being disruptive.--Jorm (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not white-washing the article. I'm explaining the numerous issues with the article in regards to NPOV, and other Wikipedia guidelines. White-washing would imply that Gab has done something wrong. I've taken quotes directly from the Wikipedia article, and explained the issues with those quotes, phrases in those quotes, or whether the sources of those quotes actually support the claim. I've explained thoroughly how each mentioned item could be improved or what's wrong with it. I've explained that there is more than one side to what type of website gab is, and have put several sources for that claim. Please clarify how I've attempted to white-wash the article. Please see WP:AOBF also. Ridiceo (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- He's not white-washing the Article, and you should stop attacking people just because you disagree with them. Also he's not being disruptive, he's attempting to achieve consensus and have dialogue with several people that would rather throw pejoratives around than defend their positions.Tym Whittier (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- My dude you have linked to a hell of a lot of policies but I don't see much 'this thing X is wrong because source Y does not say it.' Try to stick to that, not soapboxing. Consider your word salad where you claim that none of the sources used for 'far-right userbase' say that. Well, I just checked the first exact source we used and the article is literally about its far-right userbase. It says
And since its debut in August, it has emerged as a digital safe space for the far right, where white nationalists, conspiracy-theorist YouTubers, and minivan majority moms can gather without liberal interference.
, and more! The headline isThe Far Right Has a New Digital Safe Space
. You need to focus on quantifiable things, because this vague dancing around things does you no favour, especially when you're so obviously wrong. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Digital safe space for the far right
is not the same as "Known for it's far-right user base" by any factor. Please refer to specific things I've said when you're replying to said thing. I've not said these things were "wrong" in the article, I'm stating problems with them. That's the key. Please be more specific when talking about what I've written.
- My dude you have linked to a hell of a lot of policies but I don't see much 'this thing X is wrong because source Y does not say it.' Try to stick to that, not soapboxing. Consider your word salad where you claim that none of the sources used for 'far-right userbase' say that. Well, I just checked the first exact source we used and the article is literally about its far-right userbase. It says
You said: "My dude you have linked to a hell of a lot of policies but I don't see much 'this thing X is wrong because source Y does not say it.'"
- What are you referring to specifically? I'm not claiming everything I've quoted is wrong. I'm using these as examples and pointing out the problems with those examples or problems surrounding them.
You said: "You need to focus on quantifiable things
- What exact quantifiable things should I be focusing on? Not everything is quantifiable, especially when talking about editing an article. Certain language and phrases cannot be expressed or discussed the same as quantifiable data.
You said: "because this vague dancing around things does you no favour, especially when you're so obviously wrong."
- Could you explain exactly am I "[vaguely] dancing around things"? And could you explain how I'm "obviously wrong."?
- Impressive 11,000 text wall you've composed. No, we will not mass delete and doctor valid content and replace them with fig leaf "free speech aspect" that no reliable source treats seriously. You cannot create false balance out of thin air. Wikipedia policies does not back your filibustering that suggests a motive of whitewashing your favorite website. You have contributed nothing of value to the article or anywhere else on Wikipedia and please stop further wasting everyone's time. Tsumikiria (T/C) 21:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- Calling something a "wall of text" is a means of demonizing the person that posted it, and avoid being expected to actually read it.Tym Whittier (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Sources aren't required to change the article the way Ridiceo suggests, he's pointing out that the current sources are inadequate. If you want the article to remain the same, it's up to you to source what is currently written. Fnordware (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- Tsumikiria I have not suggested we mass delete anything, nor have I suggested that we edit the article to deceive anyone. I've pointed out several problems with certain parts of the article that don't adhere to Wikipedia policy, or that shouldn't be in the article. I haven't attempted to "white-wash" the article either. If you have any issues with what I wrote, you can reply and point out specifically what I had said, and I encourage you to do so. I'm here for the same reason as most anyone else would be, and that is to improve the article.Ridiceo (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- No one here is going to to your job for you. This is a waste of time, and your giant walls of text don't help. Your desired changes are not going to make it into the article. If you really, truly want to push the point, I suppose you can try to escalate somehow but that isn't going to go the way you think. You're a single purpose account that is clearly pushing an agenda. We've gotten very experienced at recognizing this and won't be fooled. --Jorm (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- Tsumikiria I have not suggested we mass delete anything, nor have I suggested that we edit the article to deceive anyone. I've pointed out several problems with certain parts of the article that don't adhere to Wikipedia policy, or that shouldn't be in the article. I haven't attempted to "white-wash" the article either. If you have any issues with what I wrote, you can reply and point out specifically what I had said, and I encourage you to do so. I'm here for the same reason as most anyone else would be, and that is to improve the article.Ridiceo (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with almost everything he's posted, and think that everything he's posted is valid, worth reading and worth paying attention to. I also think that you are trying to "win" the conversation (strike 1) by demonizing someone who disagrees with you (strike 2). I also think it's odd that you can behave this way and still predict that you'll "win" if it escalates. Is it really like that here on Wikipedia? If someone has a substantive disagreement with another Editor, and that Editor has "friends" somewhere, that the act of posting something in disagreement is a waste of time? If so, that's very discouraging.Tym Whittier (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- The specific thing is that you are relentlessly gaming the system. You listed everything that doesn't submit to your own viewpoint and do you expect us to reply to every single sentence you listed? Of course you're going to declare "But you didn't respond to my points!" Stop wasting time. Tsumikiria (T/C) 23:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- Again, if you'd like to comment on the content I've posted, you can do that. But please don't assume that I'm breaking Wikipedia guidelines. I'm simply asking that you don't assume bad faith. I've made a section documenting multiple things that I believe are issues with the article. I'm not asking that you reply to everything I've brought up, I simply put this here to document what I believe to be problems with the article. I'm not using it as a justification for an edit, nor am i going to make a wall of text in response, expecting you to respond to every new point I may put forward. If you'd like, you can respond specifically, and we can discuss specifically on that topic. Ridiceo (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- The specific thing is that you are relentlessly gaming the system. You listed everything that doesn't submit to your own viewpoint and do you expect us to reply to every single sentence you listed? Of course you're going to declare "But you didn't respond to my points!" Stop wasting time. Tsumikiria (T/C) 23:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
You're sea-lioning. No one is going to respond to you "point by point"; you've been given a blanket "no". "Assume good faith" is not a suicide pact. You reek of being a single-purpose, agenda driven account. You've had your rope. You can go back to gab now.--Jorm (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- But Tsumikiria, I notice that you make a regular practice of posting links to Wikipedia Policy, but never not once have you ever bothered to try to explain HOW that Wikipedia Policy applies to the topic being discussed. Almost as if you are using the act of posting some Wikipedia Policy as a means by which to prevent discussion. I notice you fail to respond to what appears to me to be valid points, and questions, and at one point you even stated openly that you "didn't care" about the fact that the Article was patently inaccurate. This is all very confusing to me. I read all these Wikipedia Policies, and yet I see those that seem to know them fail to uphold them, and at the same time they claim to be able to use them to have another Editor "blocked". Is this the way things are supposed to be? Are you a good Editor? Earlier I tried to emulate your conversational style and ended-up being chastised for "not a forum". It appears to me that you and at least one other person make a regular practice of using "Wikipedia Policy" as a conversational cudgel, and when that fails you then attack, name-call, demonize and finally threaten to have the object of your ire blocked from the Article. So I ask again; Are you a Good Editor? Are you a good role model? Should I style myself after how you comport yourself here? I'm new at this, and looking for guidance.Tym Whittier (talk) 22:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Tym, I have read the entirety of Ridiceo's post above, the entirety of your lengthy replies, and the entirety of WP guidelines that I cited. Although some of his suggestions about particular wordings are worth discussing, he claimed the article minimized the "free speech aspect" of Gab, despite the sources he presented does not do his favor. Sources write about "free speech" rhetoric of Gab in sections that introduces its labels of itself, rather than establishing plainly as fact. Without quoting from sources that support the proposal of adding "free speech perspective", instead he cherrypicked sentences from article and exclaimed an unfair representation of the subject. Other editors and I have told him that he was proposing an undue viewpoint and calling for bothsidesism, but to no avail, he continued to protest, to a disruptive degree that everyone had to take time replying to him. I fully understand the frustration of fellow editors dealing with him.
- And you were warned by others of NOTAFORUM mainly due to your frequent and lengthy post of 2018 mail bombing conspiracy theory. That was not what I did. Tsumikiria (T/C) 23:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- But Tsumikiria, I notice that you make a regular practice of posting links to Wikipedia Policy, but never not once have you ever bothered to try to explain HOW that Wikipedia Policy applies to the topic being discussed. Almost as if you are using the act of posting some Wikipedia Policy as a means by which to prevent discussion. I notice you fail to respond to what appears to me to be valid points, and questions, and at one point you even stated openly that you "didn't care" about the fact that the Article was patently inaccurate. This is all very confusing to me. I read all these Wikipedia Policies, and yet I see those that seem to know them fail to uphold them, and at the same time they claim to be able to use them to have another Editor "blocked". Is this the way things are supposed to be? Are you a good Editor? Earlier I tried to emulate your conversational style and ended-up being chastised for "not a forum". It appears to me that you and at least one other person make a regular practice of using "Wikipedia Policy" as a conversational cudgel, and when that fails you then attack, name-call, demonize and finally threaten to have the object of your ire blocked from the Article. So I ask again; Are you a Good Editor? Are you a good role model? Should I style myself after how you comport yourself here? I'm new at this, and looking for guidance.Tym Whittier (talk) 22:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- I've not asked any questions. I've not asked that anyone respond to me "point by point". Please stop accusing me of things that aren't attributable. I've simply asked that, if you'd like, you can respond specifically to any single thing from what I've stated. I don't expect you to go through them all, or even any. As I've stated, I put this section here to express my concerns with the article, and to push forward discussion. That is it. Ridiceo (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- It seems to me that Ridiceo is being a good Wikipedia citizen, editing in the proper way which does involve discussing the specifics of the text to be edited. It is the rest of you who seem to have no regard for Wikipedia guidelines, NPOV, or genuinely improving this article. Fnordware (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Part of the conflict here is resolved by everyone acknowledging that, within the current political/ideological environment, "the far right" and "censorship" are two sides of the exact same coin. It's not about one, or the other. It's about both. They are axiomatically related. Failure to accept this point will result in a continuation of "more of the same".
- Tym Whittier (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
RfC about whether "Known for it's far-right user base" should be kept or excluded from the lede
Should the phrase "Known for it's far-right user base" be included in the lede of this article? Ridiceo (talk) 04:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. Additional note to people arriving from elsewhere: Ridiceo is a single purpose account (99% of edits on this page) and is trying to force their agenda (to white-wash Gab) into the article, an agenda which has been roundly thrashed.. This is a premature RFC, is disruptive, and was opened in bad-faith. This RFC should be procedurally closed and the user admonished for frivolously wasting everyone's time.--Jorm (talk) 05:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Your claims of "forcing an agenda", whitewashing, disruptive behavior, bad-faith, and the accusation that I'm a single-purpose account are all unsubstantiated claims. Please stop attacking other editors because of their attempts to change an article. Thank you. Ridiceo (talk) 05:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Furthermore, this is not a "premature" RFC. I've gone through basic dispute resolutions, and they've gone nowhere. In Archive 5, I started a discussion about whether "Known for it's far-right user base" was supported by the sources cited. This was nearly a month ago. Instead of attempting to reach consensus, other users attacked me for my 'conduct', rather than discussing the content of the article. One of these examples is right here. Ridiceo (talk) 05:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes When you search for Gab in Google News ("gab social network"), it's clear that Gab's notability comes primarily from its use by right-wing extremists. R2 (bleep) 05:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes - absolutely overwhelming number of sources report Gab because of its far-right users. Phrase should be duly included in the first sentence. SPA RfC proposer has relentlessly filibustered to make the article submit to his "free speech perspective" soapboxing, as you can see in his latest 10-page essay above. Per Jorm, editor should be topic banned for being frustratingly disruptive and WP:NOTHERE. Tsumikiria (T/C) 06:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Your claim that "absolutely overwhelming number of sources report Gab because of its far-right users." is unsourced. Your claim that I have "relentlessly filibustered", or I have "soapboxed" are unsubstantiated claims. Please follow Wikipedia Etiquette, and be civil when talking about other users. If you have an issue with how I'm conducting myself, please see WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE for information on how to deal with conduct disputes. Please avoid talking about conduct issues on a talk page about Gab (Social Network). If you think I've seriously violated Wikipedia guidelines, you can ask an administrator to evaluate my behavior at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thank you. Ridiceo (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes: that's what the site is known for, as can be seen from the sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes the site is known and used primarily because of its user base, and this is clear from the sources and a neutrally written academic article. SportingFlyer talk 06:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes Please see my comment in one of the many discussions started by Ridiceo - the reliable sources establish this as fact. One of the reliable sources used is solely focused on its far-right user base. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, passes MOS:LEADREL. Although "far-right" sounds like whitewashing. I note a lot of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior by other yes-voters above. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 09:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, as much as it pains me to agree with many of the people involved with editing this page. Perhaps it is not fair for Gab to be characterized this way in left-leaning media, but it is. While much of this article is imbalanced, that particular sentence is not. It would be more balanced if "The site presents itself as an 'alternative of Twitter' that 'champions free speech'" was the second sentence. Fnordware (talk) 17:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes - Would vaguely prefer "Commonly cited for its association with far right users", as a slightly less narrative statement. But either works... NickCT (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, AND... - Also include some mention that is also known for it's opposition to censorship, aka free speech. I do not believe the encyclopedia can say the one without including the other. They go "hand in glove". Also lose the scare quotes and sarcastic/skeptical POV attitude around free speech. It's about the far right, free speech, and censorship. Tym Whittier (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes - That's clearly what reliable sources are telling us. At the risk of obviousness, the user-base is what makes the site notable in the first place. ModerateMike729 (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Seems we've got clear consensus here...motion to close? ModerateMike729 (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
"before he deleted them", Reverted ("Reception" Section)
I deleted the text "before he deleted them" because the source given (11) does not support it. That edit was reverted by Tsumikiria, with the comment "the article contains links todead tweet links, which means they're deleted)". The Article having "dead links" does not mean that any of the dead links were used to support the statement (before he deleted them). I assume you would need to show that one of the dead links actually conveyed the idea that "he" (Torba) "deleted them". Those dead links could be about anything, and at this point I see no reason how you can use the idea that "dead links" somewhere in the Article somehow justifies keeping this language. Further, the only citation given is #11. If your "dead links" theory were valid, there would be a citation for that particular passage associated with that particular passage.
I also note what appears to be the start of a pattern. In the past you've tried to used "deleted tweets" to support other text that does not appear to have reliable sources. If the journalist that wrote the Article did not consider the supposed Tweet important enough to include in the actual Article, that's an indicator of how important it was to the Article. I checked all the tweets referenced in the source Article, and none of them appeared to have been about a statement about Torba actually deleting anything. So exactly which "dead link" are you saying had the reference that Torba deleted the posts. Further, to remind you, that same passage has already been discovered to contain factually incorrect information ("two jews", when only one character in the meme was obviously jewish), which indicates (at best) sloppy workmanship on the part of whoever built this area of the Article. Was it you?
Torba alternately explained the tweets as possibly inauthentic or doctored, later "clearly satire / comedy", and then much later "a few edgy tweets posted by interns", before he deleted them.[11]
Tym Whittier (talk) 21:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Agree with this change. The article does not state that Torba had deleted the tweets. Additionally, those tweets could have been removed by Twitter, or the article could have made an error in linking to the tweet in question. A dead link on an article doesn't imply anything about what happened to the tweet. Ridiceo (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- It was a bit inaccurate, but the tweets are indeed removed from the account. The WaPo article contain a link to a archived tweet by Wayback Machine: [1], which is a archive to the now-nonexistent tweet linked here:[https:/twitter.com/getongab/status/1004785328283004928]. The article also contain a link to google archive which is unfortunately 404 now: [2]. The google archive too links to another removed tweet: [3]. I believe we can trust the authenticity of Washington Post authors and archive.org and google archived URLs. This particular phrase used to be referenced directly by the links, but they were integrated to the larger sentence and had the references removed. Rewriting it as something observable and objective like "the tweets are removed from the account" would not constitute OR, I believe. Tsumikiria (T/C) 21:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Why we're including this in the first place doesn't make any sense to me, except to push the idea that Torba is secretly far-right and is secretly deleting content he put out to make it seem like he's not. The incident isn't particularly notable either, and only discusses the owner, Andrew Torba, rather than the site it's self. Nonetheless, we shouldn't be including in the article that the tweets were deleted if it isn't covered in the cited material that these tweets were deleted. Even if several archives show that the tweet was deleted, it still needs to be covered by a secondary source. The source cited isn't enough, and including different archives to "prove" that the tweet/s were deleted is WP:OR Ridiceo (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- The CNN source in the paragraph indeed say "But the company has itself taken part in anti-Semitic commentary, deleted tweets show." This phrase could be included and sourced. No one here have "pushed the idea that Torba is secretly far-right and is secretly deleting content" as you accused. We don't have agendas on that. Tsumikiria (T/C) 21:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Let's get consensus on that first. One source is pretty weak. @Tsumikiria: You're at 4 reverts by my count. More discussion/BRD and fewer reverts would be good. And what's inc.com, never heard of it. D.Creish (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- I explained reasonably for my reverts. Inc.com is an American magazine focused on small businesses. Even is there is only one or two context occurrences, The Verge, Daily Beast, and Inc, are all reliable enough to pass verifiability support a the "favourite" statement. Verge is a good source for tech news, and Inc.com article is from 2016, long before any recent controversies.
- CNN and Washington Post are currently the only two source that covered Gab's own antisemitic commentary. Requesting more sources on an obvious matter would be unreasonable and unnecessary. Tsumikiria (T/C) 08:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- CNN and Washington Post reported on tweets you *think* are antisemetic. That's called an opinion, Tsumikiria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridiceo (talk • contribs) 2018-12-06T08:07:53 (UTC)
- And now you're beating a horse, long dead, dismembered and disfigured. let it go. Tsumikiria (T/C) 21:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- CNN and Washington Post reported on tweets you *think* are antisemetic. That's called an opinion, Tsumikiria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridiceo (talk • contribs) 2018-12-06T08:07:53 (UTC)
- Let's get consensus on that first. One source is pretty weak. @Tsumikiria: You're at 4 reverts by my count. More discussion/BRD and fewer reverts would be good. And what's inc.com, never heard of it. D.Creish (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- The CNN source in the paragraph indeed say "But the company has itself taken part in anti-Semitic commentary, deleted tweets show." This phrase could be included and sourced. No one here have "pushed the idea that Torba is secretly far-right and is secretly deleting content" as you accused. We don't have agendas on that. Tsumikiria (T/C) 21:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Why we're including this in the first place doesn't make any sense to me, except to push the idea that Torba is secretly far-right and is secretly deleting content he put out to make it seem like he's not. The incident isn't particularly notable either, and only discusses the owner, Andrew Torba, rather than the site it's self. Nonetheless, we shouldn't be including in the article that the tweets were deleted if it isn't covered in the cited material that these tweets were deleted. Even if several archives show that the tweet was deleted, it still needs to be covered by a secondary source. The source cited isn't enough, and including different archives to "prove" that the tweet/s were deleted is WP:OR Ridiceo (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
'Still not improvements'
Hi D.Creish. In your 3rd revert of the day, you said that the edits made by me and Tsumikiria were 'still not improvements' (that is all the edit summary said) when reverting them. I'm having difficulty understanding what you meant - your edit goes from removing a description of antisemitic commentary made by the platform to rephrasing the well-sourced (please see above sections) 'favorite of' wording being discussed to the contentious phrasing proposed by Ridiceo, as well as other, even harder to understand reverts of edits made. I note that you have only made one small comment on this talk page, which makes your unexplained reverts hard to understand. Could you please explain? PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- D.Creish also reverted important copyedits made by Ahrtoodeetoo and me without adequate explanation. At this point these reverts are hard to understand to be other than out of personal liking, rather than genuine improvement of the article, especially when the reverted material are well sourced and under consensus. Explain your reasons, or do not revert in questionable faith. Tsumikiria (T/C) 21:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- So like, the several reverts you have done to both mine and his edits? I make an edit, you revert it, I discuss on the talk page, you accuse me of breaking Wikipedia guideline, rinse and repeat. Ridiceo (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- I provided detailed explanation for my reverts and actively discussed and explaned my changes on this talk page, unlike the other user. You ignored PeterTheFourth's explanation in above sections, so here I repeat for you: All three sources, The far-right’s favorite social network is facing its own censorship controversy, Pittsburgh Synagogue Shooter Spewed His Hate on Gab, the Alt-Right’s Favorite Social Network, Gab, the Alt-Right's Favorite Social Network, Gets Rejections From Apple, Twitter, they are all factual reporting, not op/eds, from reliable sources. This is especially true when startup-focused Inc identified Gab as such in 2016, long before any recent controversies. And yes, article titles too count as content that can be used to verify facts, and the articles did have in-text support for such: "Gab has marketed itself as a home for extremists", "built catering to right-wing extremists into its business model", "back-up social network for white supremacist". Outside of these sources, 61% of individuals on ADL's extremist list is also something. "Favorite of far-right" is a verified, better descriptor than mere "popular with". Twitter/Facebook/Tumblr is popular with far-right too. Facts should not be written as opinions.
- And because you did go against Wikipedia guidelines? Your idiosyncratic interpretation of factual reporting being opinion, based on your own liking, was a clear misreading of Wikipedia guideline to your own advantage. You are shown to repeatedly push your interpretations with which the consensus of the community clearly does not agree and refuse to concede when your points has been disproved or rejected by the community. Please spare the now dead beyond-all-recognition horse you have beaten. Tsumikiria (T/C) 06:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- To insist that each and every source wont have some sort of opinion is absurd. Yes, they are factual reporting. That's because what they're reporting on is verifiable as a fact. The first article you linked, it's reporting on Gab having been told by their domain registrar to remove a post. NOT whether or not gab is a "favorite" of the alt-right. Gab being a "favorite" of the alt-right is objectively their opinion. And for the 15 millionth time, the article doesn't even claim & back up the statement "far-right's favorite social network", in their article. Why? because the article is not about whether Gab is the alt-right or far-right's favorite website. Furthermore, Media bias is an actual thing that exists. It's not some phony far-right conspiracy theory. "This article says it so that must mean it's fact" isn't how Wikipedia uses sources. We discern what it's reporting on and it's actual bias by writing about it in a neutral point of view. It's why we have WP:ASSERT, and WP:YESPOV. Gab being a "favorite" of the alt-right isn't verifiable. None of the sources you cited report on Gab being a "Favorite" of the alt-right. Ridiceo (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- I just told you why the articles support this particular wording. It is also a better choice than mere "popular with", as "popular with" fails to distinguish the difference in notability between Gab and Twitter/FB etc that are also widely used by extremists. And NPOV is not "No POV". Even bot writers are trained by their journalist owners' biases to some degree. It's improbable to demand some absolutely POV untainted GMO-free content. They don't readily exist, if any. If they are reliable, verified, weight and writing considered, then yes, they're in. No questions asked. The horse you've beaten is now up to eleven beyond dead, so once again, please drop the stick Tsumikiria (T/C) 07:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
- To insist that each and every source wont have some sort of opinion is absurd. Yes, they are factual reporting. That's because what they're reporting on is verifiable as a fact. The first article you linked, it's reporting on Gab having been told by their domain registrar to remove a post. NOT whether or not gab is a "favorite" of the alt-right. Gab being a "favorite" of the alt-right is objectively their opinion. And for the 15 millionth time, the article doesn't even claim & back up the statement "far-right's favorite social network", in their article. Why? because the article is not about whether Gab is the alt-right or far-right's favorite website. Furthermore, Media bias is an actual thing that exists. It's not some phony far-right conspiracy theory. "This article says it so that must mean it's fact" isn't how Wikipedia uses sources. We discern what it's reporting on and it's actual bias by writing about it in a neutral point of view. It's why we have WP:ASSERT, and WP:YESPOV. Gab being a "favorite" of the alt-right isn't verifiable. None of the sources you cited report on Gab being a "Favorite" of the alt-right. Ridiceo (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- So like, the several reverts you have done to both mine and his edits? I make an edit, you revert it, I discuss on the talk page, you accuse me of breaking Wikipedia guideline, rinse and repeat. Ridiceo (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The articles do not support the particular wording. These articles are not about whether or not Gab is a "Favorite" of far-right or alt-right users. It's important to include opinions as opinions. In quotes. They don't support the claim that it is a "favorite" of far-right users. They simply say it in their title. I've explained thoroughly why that is an opinion.
I said: ""Favorite" is editorializing, and isn't supported in the sources cited, as those sources don't cite any research articles or statistics that show that Gab is a "Favorite" of the alt-right." My response from PeterTheFourth was: "In a news article, we do not pick and choose what are 'facts' and what is 'opinion' based on how much we like it. An article is generally an opinion piece e.g. op-eds/etc. or it is factual writing." This isn't a refutation of my main point. I replied to him: "Then that means any source goes. Even unreliable ones. This assertion is ridiculous. There is a very clear distinction between opinion and fact. It is an opinion BECAUSE it's not supported by anything the source has said."
Another user then replied, "I'm satisfied with the verifiability of the "favorite" language now that we have sourcing that supports it. However we now have citation overkill. Not as big a deal, but I'd suggest we remove the sources that don't verify the current language (both Washington Post articles) and one or two of the weaker other ones. I don't know the relative reliability of Inc.com, The Verge, and The Daily Beast. My hunch is that The Daily Beast is the most reliable of those three. " Which again, doesn't refute my central point. It only states that the sources support the language used, and doesn't show how this sourcing supports the language. I replied, then, saying "Sourcing doesn't support it. It's still an opinion, and the article does not cite any information showing that Gab is a "favorite" of the alt-right. " And then *gasp* as soon as I disagreed with him, now I'm suddenly against consensus. they said, "You made your "opinion" point, no need to beat it to death. The consensus is against you on that one." That's weird, I didn't know that a single user got to choose when a consensus was made. Ridiceo (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Ridiceo: WP:DROPTHESTICK. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
- Ignoring my argument doesn't make it go away, PeterTheFourth. Ridiceo (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
- Fine. The rest of us already moved on and you don't even have to agree. Concede while you can. Tsumikiria (T/C) 03:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- Reaching consensus is important. However consensus isn't made just because you say it's been made. You can continue to ignore me and lie about consensus being made, however that doesn't change the core meaning of my argument. My argument is still the same. Consensus-Blacklisting another editor (aka reaching a consensus by ignoring another editor's concerns, then claiming a consensus was made, and reversing any edits that single editor made) can lead to meat-puppetry or edit-warring. Remember: Consensus doesn't prevent me from editing the article. Creating factions to abuse the consensus-making process doesn't end well. You can continue to ignore my concerns, or you can respond directly to them, instead of crying "concensus has already been made", and you may change my mind. However, blacklisting me from consensus-making isn't going to go how you think it will. Ridiceo (talk) 06:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- Fine. The rest of us already moved on and you don't even have to agree. Concede while you can. Tsumikiria (T/C) 03:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- Ignoring my argument doesn't make it go away, PeterTheFourth. Ridiceo (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
- Again I've removed "extreme" and "immediate intent to harm" from the lede because neither was in the cited sources. Don't restore it without a source and consensus. D.Creish (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- I thought I reviewed them all. Can you tell me which one best supports it and I'll check again? D.Creish (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC) The justification you gave in your edit summary is OR. Per WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME wait for consensus before restoring. D.Creish (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- Source 1 [4] says: "Bowers' final post on Gab announced his imminent attack on the synagogue"; notes his "anti-Semitic posts about the mass killing of Jews"; "he announced his 'imminent, lawless' attack on the religious center". Source 2 [5] quotes Bowers' post: "HIAS likes to bring invaders in that kill our people. I can't sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I'm going in." -- Softlavender (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- How's this? My objections are specifically to "immediate" (which is different from imminent) and "intent to harm" which is one way to phrase it but not one used by the sources. D.Creish (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- I thought I reviewed them all. Can you tell me which one best supports it and I'll check again? D.Creish (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC) The justification you gave in your edit summary is OR. Per WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME wait for consensus before restoring. D.Creish (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- As far as sourcing I'm fine with the protected version which includes Softlavender edit. Style could be improved but I don't think anyone's going to edit war over that. D.Creish (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- No. You put in what I think is your fifth revert before it was locked; we'll return to the earlier text when the lock expires, I think.--Jorm (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- In this context, I am not sure I see the distinction between "announced his imminent attack" and "posted an immediate intent to harm" (which seems to be the main point of contention here.) Was your revert procedural, or do you have a specific reason to prefer "announced his imminent attack?" The "immediate / imminent" quibbling above notwithstanding, I think both are valid summaries of the sources (announcing an imminent attack is posting an immediate intent to harm; we're allowed to paraphrase to that extent), and I can understand objecting to all the reverts, but I also think the revised version is a bit more clear and at this point says essentially the same thing. --Aquillion (talk) 04:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- No. You put in what I think is your fifth revert before it was locked; we'll return to the earlier text when the lock expires, I think.--Jorm (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
@Softlavender: Were my objections clear? Do you agree/disagree? D.Creish (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 11 December 2018
Please add in {{short description|Alt-right social network}} at top of page. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 00:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- Not done while the page is fully protected you will need to establish a consensus for this specific change, after one emerges in this section feel free to reactivate the edit request if needed. — xaosflux Talk 04:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- Agree with change.--Jorm (talk) 04:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- Agree - although "far-right" may be a broader, more suitable descriptor based on sources. We can edit on Wikidata in the meantime. Tsumikiria (T/C) 05:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- If the Wikidata info is appropriate for this article, then it should be added. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 06:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- Partly done on Wikidata. Now this stuff should show up in your mobile WP apps. Check it out. Tsumikiria (T/C) 06:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Tsumikiria: I have noticed that it has appeared on Wikidata. However, I still don't see it on the article. I don't think there'd be any controversy if the short description template were added to that page, provided we get consensus on whether to put in "alt-right social network" or "far-right social network" on the short description, though I sense that the consensus is already leaning "far-right" instead. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 00:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Partly done on Wikidata. Now this stuff should show up in your mobile WP apps. Check it out. Tsumikiria (T/C) 06:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- If the Wikidata info is appropriate for this article, then it should be added. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 06:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- Far-right is preferable based on the first sentence of the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 06:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Protected until 4 November 2019
Locking the article for nearly a year over a one-sentence editing conflict seems excessive to me. PaulCHebert (talk)
- Locked till 2018-12-17 due to edit war by one user, after which semiprotection will resume till 2019-11-04. Semi was due to long history of the subject itself recruiting editors towards this article, and disruptive editing and POV pushing in general. Tsumikiria (T/C) 20:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. PaulCHebert (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Character limit update to 3,000
On the 16th of December, Gab expanded the character limit to 3,000 for all members, the 3,000 limit previously being a feature for Pro members only [1]. The second sentence of the article should be changed to reflect that Luminism (talk) 08:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Y Combinator alumni network
We have the following text
...was himself removed from the Y Combinator alumni network because of harassment concerns, starting when he used "build the wall" to insult a Latino CEO
The single source for the Latino claim[6] doesn't use the word insult, doesn't indicate Torba knew he was Latino, doesn't claim the aforementioned Latino is a CEO, and doesn't indicate that specific post had any bearing on the harassment claim. It's a questionable statement about a BLP and should be removed. D.Creish (talk) 04:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Are you serious with this wikilawyering? No. --Jorm (talk) 04:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- How exactly does describing the CEO as Latino (with a source) violate WP:BLP? This is a new one, even for you. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
JFC. Since Mr. Apologist Demands Consensus:
- I think we could reword it slightly, but the fact that he was banned for harassment and threats is pretty well-cited. Here, here, here. I feel we should reword it to avoid saying or implying that "build the wall" was the specific insult that got him banned, since that's not quite what the sources say. I'd just omit that and say that he was banned for harassment and threats instead. (Also, we should use these as cites - they're better than TechCrunch and Buzzfeed, certainly.) Something like
Andrew Torba, the CEO of Gab.ai, was himself removed from the Y Combinator alumni network for violating its harassment policy and for "speaking in a threatening, harassing way towards other YC founders."
or something to that effect. If anything, Torba himself seems to be the only one obsessed with the "build the wall" tweet (the more detailed description gives me the sense that he was trying to force a meme with it or something? But the "banned for threats and for violation of harassment policy" bit is the important thing for a one-sentence takeaway, not comparative trivia like that.) Honestly, the "build the wall" part serves to minimize what happened, really (which would be why Torba is fixated on it.) Also, if anything, the current construction of "harassment concerns" soft-sells what the sources say; eg. engaget'sIt's also worth noting that Torba was just kicked out of startup incubator Y Combinator for violating its harassment policy
and the "speaking in a threatening, harassing way towards other YC founders" quote that most sources include is much more clear-cut than the more vague "harassment concerns" we have now. --Aquillion (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- I think we could reword it slightly, but the fact that he was banned for harassment and threats is pretty well-cited. Here, here, here. I feel we should reword it to avoid saying or implying that "build the wall" was the specific insult that got him banned, since that's not quite what the sources say. I'd just omit that and say that he was banned for harassment and threats instead. (Also, we should use these as cites - they're better than TechCrunch and Buzzfeed, certainly.) Something like